First Citizens Bank v. George Spirakis, No. 12-1914 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1914 FIRST CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY INC., Plaintiff Appellee, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, a/k/a Federal Reserve Board, Third Party Defendants - Appellees, v. GEORGE N. SPIRAKIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:11-cv-02895-RBH) Submitted: February 22, 2013 Decided: March 15, 2013 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George N. Spirakis, SPIRAKIS AND HAAR, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; Sam G. Stathos, PATRICK & STATHOS, LLC, Surfside Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mark B. Stern, Jeffrey E. Sandberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: George N. Spirakis appeals the district court s order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his claim that the United States Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve violated his rights to equal protection and due process by declining to provide him financial assistance under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. We have carefully reviewed the parties briefs and the joint appendix and find no legal or factual basis to reverse the district court s conclusion that Congress has not waived its sovereign immunity with respect to money damage awards arising from agency action pursuant to the Emergency Economic Stabilization ยงยง 5201-5261 (West Supp. 2012). Act of 2008, 12 U.S.C.A. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Spirakis, No. 4:11-cv-02895-RBH (D.S.C. May 30, 2012). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3